Alley v. Daniel

• Decision Date: 06 December 1929
• Docket Number: 12777.
• Parties: ALLEY v. DANIEL et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

150 S.E. 691

153 S.C. 217

ALLEY v. DANIEL et al.

No. 12777.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 6, 1929

Original petition by J. C. Alley, as a citizen, taxpayer, resident and freeholder of the Spartanburg Metropolitan District, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Thomas H. Daniel and others, constituting the Spartanburg Metropolitan District, to enjoin issue and sale of bonds. On demurrer to petition after rule to show cause why injunction should not issue. Injunction denied, and petition dismissed.

H. K Osborne and Thos. B. Butler, Jr., both of Spartanburg, for petitioner.

C. E. Daniel, of Spartanburg, for defendants.

STABLER J.

At its 1929 session, the Legislature passed an Act (36 St. at Large, p. 992), the title of which reads as follows: "An act to Create and Establish a Sewer District in Spartanburg County to be known as 'Spartanburg Metropolitan District,' and to Define its Powers and Authority, and to Provide for the Government Thereof, and for the Issuance of Bonds to Provide Funds for Constructing and Establishing a System or Systems of Sewer and Sewerage Disposal for the Protection of Health in said District and the Establishment and Maintenance of Proper Sanitary Conditions Therein."

After creating the district and fixing its boundaries, the act provides for a governing body called a "commission," and confers upon such body, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the law, power and authority to construct and operate two adequate main trunk lines in the district with sewerage disposal or treatment plants and to make contracts for the purpose of connecting existing sewers therewith, and to issue and sell bonds to an amount not exceeding $1,000,000, upon the favorable result of an election to be held as provided by the act, etc. The statute also provides (and here the objection made by petitioner arises) that the city of Spartanburg, which lies within the boundaries of the district, is created as subdistrict A and required to connect its sewer system with the main trunk lines to be constructed by the commission; and the commission is further authorized and empowered to designate any community in the district, other than the city of Spartanburg, and having a sewer system now in existence, as a subdistrict, and to identify it alphabetically. The act also provides for the future creation of subdistricts within the district named, for the installation therein of lateral lines or sewer systems to be connected with the main trunk lines as future necessity may arise, such subdistricts being empowered; as corporate entities, to issue bonds or certificates of indebtedness, in the manner prescribed by the act, for any amount necessary for the construction and installation of such lateral lines. The government of these subdistricts is provided for, as well as the levy of a tax to retire the bonds issued, etc.

This action was brought, in the original jurisdiction of the court, by a citizen and taxpayer of the Spartanburg Metropolitan district, on behalf of himself and other taxpayers thereof, for the purpose of having enjoined the issue and sale of bonds of the district authorized by the act. On the verified petition, Hon. R. C. Watts, Chief Justice, issued a rule requiring the defendants to show cause before this court, at the time named in the order, why the petitioner's prayer should not be granted. The defendants demurred to the petition, upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The single objection made is that the act is violative of section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution, which provides: "Every Act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." The petitioner concedes that so much of the act as creates the district, with a proper governing body, etc., is coherent, complete, and logical, and meets the purposes and objects expressed in the title, and that had the legislation stopped at that point, there would be no doubt of the validity of the enactment; but contends that when the Legislature provided for the future creation of subdistricts as corporate entities, with a method of government, the issuance of bonds by same, etc., the act was thereby rendered unconstitutional and invalid, for the reason that such provisions lie altogether without the scope of the title.

With regard to this provision of the Constitution, we find the following quoted with approval in McKiever v. City of Sumter, 137 S.C. 266, 135 S.E. 60, 63:

26 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 574: "This constitutional requirement should not be enforced in any narrow or technical spirit. It was introduced to prevent certain abuses, and it should be reasonably and liberally construed on the one hand so as to guard against these abuses, and on the other...